How Google’s Checkbook Stymied Microsoft

Shortly after Microsoft announced its hostile bid for Yahoo, Google objected and raised the prospect that it would lobby government regulators to block any merger.

As it turned out, Google was very much the spoiler in the deal. But its most effective weapon was not threats or coercion, but its very effective, and unconventional, use of its own checkbook.

Google has agreed to sell some search advertising for Yahoo. And since Google earns far more on every search than its rivals do, this will mean an immediate increase in Yahoo’s profits.

Microsoft’s chief executive, Steven A. Ballmer, said the prospect of such a deal that could deprive Microsoft of being able to sell all Yahoo’s search ads made proceeding with a hostile takeover less attractive. And Yahoo hopes the promise of a big check each quarter from Google will placate enough shareholders to head off a revolt over its decision to turn down Microsoft’s offer of $33 a share.

It is a rare company that will help its biggest rival this way. And Google’s offer is all the more unusual because it does not neutralize Yahoo as a potential future competitor, at least explicitly.

According to what we know so far about the arrangement, Google will sell ads on some of the most popular terms on Yahoo’s search engine, giving Yahoo the vast bulk of the revenue (as it always does with sites for which it sells ads). Yahoo’s stated plan is to take that money and continue to develop its own search advertising system that is meant to rival Google. When Yahoo’s own technology is good enough, it will presumably start selling its own ads for all its terms, and try to destroy the company that had thrown it a lifeline in its time of need.

Why would Google do this?

Eric E. Schmidt, Google’s chief executive, portrayed the move as a gesture of friendship.

“It’s nice to be working with Yahoo,” he told analysts last month. “We like them very much.”

There even may be a bit of truth to that. Google’s founders, Larry Page and Sergey Brin, indeed have been friendly with Jerry Yang and David Filo, the founders of Yahoo. All four of them studied, and cooked up their companies, at Stanford.

Moreover, Yahoo gave Google its major break, hiring the fledgling company to power the searches on Yahoo.com. Many suggest that Google would never have established itself with Internet users were it not for the promotion it received from Yahoo, which put Google’s name and logo on every Yahoo search results page. So perhaps Google is indeed trying to return a favor.

The other explanation, not mutually exclusive, is that Google fears Microsoft far more than it fears Yahoo. That’s odd, perhaps, because in Google’s the most important markets, Web search and online advertising, Yahoo now is a bigger and more effective competitor than Microsoft.

But Microsoft has far more money and engineering bench strength than Yahoo does, so Google may fear it more in the long run. Moreover, Microsoft has quite a history trying to best rivals through tough tactics and exploitation of its Windows franchise.

Google has made no secret over the years that the rival it is most concerned about is Microsoft, and it has raised several objections to the prospect of a merger. In any case, a combination of Microsoft and Yahoo could be a tougher competitor to Google than either separately.

Most significantly, Google acts as if it has the confidence that it can win in the market, even if it makes deals that look very advantageous to others. Google has long, for example, provided a very rich advertising deal to Ask.com, a smaller rival. Ask has also tried to build its own search advertising system, with little impact so far.

Google understands that there is a powerful network effect in search advertising. That is, the more search ads it handles, the more money it will make and the harder it will be for anyone else to build a competing system. The more searches it handles, the more advertisers it attracts. And the more bidders in its auction, the higher the prices it will enjoy.

By attracting a commanding share of the search advertising activity, Google also has the best data with which to create equations that maximize the money it makes from each search. It turns out that picking which ad to display when is a subtle art that can have a great effect. Yahoo estimated that until recently, Google earned twice as much on each search than it did.

So while Google is giving Yahoo a fair bit of aid in the short run, I suspect that it is betting that in the long run this deal is going to sap Yahoo’s ability to build an effective search advertising system. That’s because Yahoo will have even less volume of searches to attract customers, raise bids and give it data with which to improve its ad selection technology.

I do believe that Google’s management very much wants to triumph over Microsoft. And I wouldn’t be surprised if they are getting a bit of extra enjoyment because they are doing so by smiling and passing out money, rather than through the bravado and coercion that has often characterized Microsoft.

Comments are no longer being accepted.

quite a good analysis

Is this a “triumph” for google? Isn’t this the same blog that characterized the ms-yahoo deal as an integration disaster that would be a boon to google? So let’s sum up the Bits analysis: the deal happening is a boon to google, and the deal not happening is a triumph for google.

This is the same tactic Google used with the print news media. Pay them a little money to have free use of their news content. Like stupid junkies, the print news media are hooked. Slowly but surely they lose not only their print readers but also their on-line readers because people can get quick news on Google while print media looses money subsidizing Google’s free content. Eventually, Yahoo will be sapped in similar way.

Rob L; N Myrtle Beach SC May 5, 2008 · 10:39 am

We should never underestimate the amount of bad will Microsoft and Gates have engendered over the years, among both knowledgable amateur tech types, AND tech professionals who want to put a ding in the Microsoft juggernaut machine, no matter how small that dent may be.

The irony is that neither Yahoo nor Google would ever have been created, much less be successful if it hadn’t been for millions upon millions of Internet-connected PCs running some version of Windows. Try as they might, neither of these companies will ever find a way to make an end-run around the persistent fact that MS still rules the consumer-PC market in operating systems, and will into the foreseeable future.

Some reporters discuss Google as though it may someday supplant Microsoft as a consumer software provider. This will only be so if you redefine what you mean by software and its deployment. Sure, a zillion people may start running Google Docs, but what platform will most of them be running it on? If you answer anything but “Windows”, you won’t make it into the final round of Tech Jeopardy.

Re Google’s apparently big-hearted gesture towards Yahoo recently regarding subcontracted search results, of course they would just as soon keep Microsoft from aquiring Yahoo, if for no other reason than to feel the satisfaction of thwarting Gates and team.

Will helping Yahoo come back to bite Google? Probably not. Regarding search, they are so far ahead of everybody else in both hardware and software abilities that they are, in effect, the Microsoft of search, with all that implies, both positive and negative. Yahoo more than has its work cut-out for it. First step: Yang should step aside and get an extremely-talented tech turnaround guy to take his place. But it will still be a slog.

At some point, Google will start getting in their own way, lose their diamond-honed edge, and join the ranks of companies that are too big and too successful to be well-managed. At that point, another company will be the new, hot place to work, and the talent will begin drifting towards that employer. It is the old Silicon Valley soap opera “As the Worm Turns”.

Until then, Brin and Page can enjoy flying their friends around in their private Boeing 767 while rationalizing to themselves about all of its environmentally harmful effects. Too much money creates its own problems, including lawsuits up the yin/yang.

It remains mysterious to me why would Microsoft buy Yahoo, at $33 or $37 a share. The dilemma Google presents to Microsoft and Yahoo is not one that can be solved by “economies of scale” (once we bring our companies together we can run a more cost-effective operation and launch a price-war against Google and eventually lure their customers away). It is rather a question of better algorithms. Users continue to find that Google turns up, in most cases, more results per search query (quantity) and more relevant results. This is that puzzle that the merger would not necessarily resolve. After all, Microsoft announced it 2005 that it would spend at least $150 million on developing its own “superior” search engine, touting in particular its natural language processing feature. Three years later, there is not much to show for the dollars and the hype.

So it appears pretty smart of Ballmer to keep his focus as he got into the heat of the negotiations. He must have known that buying Yahoo was not going to solve the Google search supremacy problem. At best it would have bought him time (and a little bit of possible scale efficiencies) while the work is on for a better search algorithm that the Redmond company is working on. And for that deal, $33 per share was the best Mr. Ballmer was willing to offer.

While windows may continue to be the primary desktop platform in the near-term, this primacy is by no means guaranteed in the long-term, and Microdoft knows this as well as anyone. The Vista boondoggle has shown that the public will not simply swallow whatever Microsoft puts on the table. In the mean time the technology landscape is changing rapidly. More and more services are moving into the internet cloud where it does not matter what platform you operate from. Apple sales are way up and the Iphone has altered consumer expectations for what the cell phone platform can provide. Linux continues to snap at Microsoft’s heels, and while Linux continues to lack polish, it is narrowing the technology gap every day. Apple’s OSX is open-source under the hood and demonstrates what could be done if Linux were to finally be buffed to a shine.

Two or three years out we could easily be looking at a consumer landscape flooded with dirt cheap computers running linux and utilizing internet based applications that do not require significant horsepower on the user’s end. Google Doc’s is only one of many examples of internet apps that are coming of age, Adobe recently unveiled an online version of Photoshop, long one of the most demanding applications in terms of computer resources.

Imagine running your business from your smart phone (Iphone, android, blackberry) and renting applications as you need them which are all hosted remotely and you don’t need to manage your own infrastructure and servers at all. This is the world we are moving towards and Microsoft is still seeking to find its place in the cloud. I’m not predicting Microsoft will go out of business or stop being a major player, but their dominance is far from assured.

Wow, missed the boat. Actually this article didn’t even make to the docks.

The internet business model in the private sector is based on one thing and one thing alone “Sharing information effectively and inexpensively”.

Yahoo bleeds away its capital by ignorance of this concept. For example, Yahoo does complete face lift every 6 months. Microsoft has other avenues to retain revenue, such as software sales. Google has not varied in the business model, it retains the same features while promoting the core value of “Sharing information effectively and inexpensively”.

-And quite probably there is friendly competition as in all businesses, though it is mostly to self gain rather then alttrusitc nature. However the truth remains the largest problem is simplely most businesses do not know what business they are in.

Well said. I just wanted to add that Microsoft, on numerous occasions, has made it explicit that it considers Google its chief rival. Microsoft already owns the desktop computer (OS) market, but it has a relatively smaller presence in the online search and advertising markets.

Plus the Ballmer-chair-throwing stories make it obvious. He reminds me of Dick Cheney for some reason.

Running my business and hosting all that data on someone else’s servers, subject to their whims, business model and security procedures? I don’t think so.

People give the cloud computing model far too much credence in these days of identity theft, bankruptcies and mergers.

I think this is great, with corporations taking over and running the world, showing compassion is definitely something that should be demonstrated to everyone. Because it’s seriously lacking these days.

Down with microsoft!
Up with the first web based OS! Go google!

the (employment) relationship between Brin/Page and Yang/Filo is a fascinating bit of revisionist history spin… as Charles Dickens once put it “Facts are to Truth as Dates are to History”

Why did Google help Yahoo!???? Simple. They hate Microsoft, too, and perhaps view them as a bigger rival. So, on the principle that “the enemy of my enemy is my friend,” they stepped in to run interference for Yahoo. So Microsoft is stymied for now. How this will play out long term is anyone’s guess, but it remains for Yahoo or even News Corp. to mash together a newspaper and a search engine to create the “digital newspaper of record.” If the NY Times is ever for sale, and Google is willing to buy,then it may happen. But for now, Yahoo! is safe. For now.

No matter who says what, as a stockholder of Yahoo, I am miffed. This was a good deal for shareholders and I do not think Yahoo could command any more premium. As Yahoo profits go down they will probably sell at much lower price than the $33 that Micrsoft offered.

Very good analysis and coverage of the background of these 2 companies. Google indeed will come as the winner and Yahoo!. I think it is in the interest of Microsoft also not to go with this deal. Yahoo! might get some temporary relief but its long time survival would need some real innovation at Yahoo!.

@Hawkeye (8)
You are spot on. MS IS NOT INTERESTED in letting you share data inexpensively. They need you add expense to your data by formatting with tools that only they sell. To date the value added by their tools in a PC centric world has exceeded the sharing tax. No longer.

@Eric (10)
Today my company’s data is stored on two sets of its own servers, primary and failover, off site from any of our worldwide offices and is accessed securely (we hope) via network security best practices.
Similarly the national banks and retailers in the city where I work do the same.
When we reach the point that we trust that Google, or Amazon, IBM, MS or whomever cloud vendor can provide services equal to those we are already receiving from our hosted off site server vendors and our “internal admin” you can bet we will jump.
If Google wanted to start an alternative “privatized” sub-net with additional security, spam filtering/authenticated users, etc. would we consider that, you can bet we would.
The sublet service just has to provide service equivalent or better than what you can provide yourself. SMBs will adopt first, maybe, but the larger businesses will follow.

If the roles were reversed, google as msft, the deal would have gone through at a discount.

Its all about leadership and corporate image, and, in the case of msft, the lack thereof.

Yep. On the money… Microsoft has been considered to be the Evil Empire from the beginning (ask Steve Jobs). It makes more sense for Google to help Yahoo than allow Yahoo to be swallowed by the boys from Seattle.

Delusional article to not think that the boys at Justice wil not look at the Google/Yahoo deal or MS might want to remind them. Also no discussion of how Yang has now squandered his own shareholders’s money with the Panama project that he now appears to be dumping as well as the opportunity to enrich them through the buyout.
I would imagine that there have been quiet a few call between some large funds on how fast we put our own people on the Board.

fdb, your reply is spot on, though you may not believe it. Yes, Google wins whether or not MicroSoft buys Yahoo!. Both MS and Y are DOWN, and Google’s cruising along fine. It’s always a no-lose situation for the lead horse when the runners up are biting at each other.

It’s a brilliant tactic to keep your biggest competitor in business. Especially when you have an open book to how well their business is ‘really’ doing. If Yahoo was to go under then the Google empire would have a boarder line monopoly for American search engines. Think about the Microsoft of the Ninety’s and how many legal battles they had for cornering the computer industry. This is what Google is really trying to avoid.

“Once the cost of distribution is reduced to zero…”. This opening quote is true not only for the recording and visual arts but software. Many large companies depend on Salesforce.com and other such hosted offerings to run their business. The cost of Internet access, storage and processor utilization is reduced significantly in a grid (cloud) environment. Even poor countries have decent Internet access now. The cost is not yet zero but low enough not depend on desktop software as much.

I am a prime example. My email and calendar are online, my bookmarks are synchronized. I bank purely online, etc….

Wait a few months.. Microsofts offer will look sweet. They will come back and get the deal they wanted. Yang is in fantasy land, he should stop taking it personal because its his baby. Microsoft will rule the world.. muhahahahah

Why did Google help Yahoo!???? Simple. They hate Microsoft, too, and perhaps view them as a bigger rival. So, on the principle that “the enemy of my enemy is my friend,” they stepped in to run interference for Yahoo. So Microsoft is stymied for now. How this will play out long term is anyone’s guess, but it remains for Yahoo or even News Corp. to mash together a newspaper and a search engine to create the “digital newspaper of record.” If the NY Times is ever for sale, and Google is willing to buy,then it may happen. But for now, Yahoo! is safe. For now.

Not a bad move by Google because they are looking at the future. Yahoo is not competition anymore for Google, especially now that their shares are down 20%. This move by Google is like the police having an informant that sells drugs. You let the guy do his thing and in turn he helps you crack down on the bigger picture.

RE: Eric: You’re equating the network with the internet. There are very important distinctions there. No company would do their cloud computing over the internet. That’s what intranets are for… The advantages of thin client apps, simpler config mgmt, and you own and host it yourself.